DOCSLIB.ORG

Source Evans, Dylan. an Introductory Dictionary of Lacanian Psychoanalysis

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Source Evans, Dylan. an Introductory Dictionary of Lacanian Psychoanalysis ENG 400: Senior Seminar Literature, Media, Modernity Professor Craig Carey Source Evans, Dylan. An Introductory Dictionary of Lacanian Psychoanalysis. Routledge: New York, 1996. mirror stage (stade du miroir) The mirror stage (also translated in English as ‘the looking-glass phase’) was the subject of Lacan’s first official contribution to psychoanalytic theory, when he propounded the concept to the Fourteenth International Psychoanalytical Congress at Marienbad in 1936 (the original 1936 paper was never published, but a rewritten version appeared in 1949). From this point on, the mirror stage forms a constant point of reference throughout Lacan’s entire work. While apparently quite simple, the concept of the mirror stage takes on an ever-increasing complexity during the course of Lacan’s work, as he takes it up and reworks it in various different contexts. The ‘mirror test’ was first described by the French psychologist and friend of Lacan, Henri Wallon, in 1931, although Lacan attributes its discovery to Baldwin (E, 1). It refers to a particular experiment which can differentiate the human infant from his closest animal relative, the chimpanzee. The six-month-old child differs from the chimpanzee of the same age in that the former becomes fascinated with its reflection in the mirror and jubilantly assumes it as its own image, whereas the chimpanzee quickly realises that the image is illusory and loses interest in it. Lacan’s concept of the mirror stage (as opposed to Wallon’s ‘mirror test’) is far more than a mere experiment: the mirror stage represents a fundamental aspect of the structure of subjectivity. Whereas in 1936–49, Lacan seems to see it is a stage which can be located at a specific time in the development of the child with a beginning (six months) and an end (eighteen months) (see E, 5), by the end of this period there are already signs that he is broadening the concept. By the early 1950s Lacan no longer regards it simply as a moment in the life of the infant, but sees it as also representing a permanent structure of subjectivity, the paradigm of the IMAGINARY order; it is a stadium (stade) in which the subject is permanently caught and captivated by his own image; [the mirror stage is] a phenomenon to which I assign a twofold value. In the first place, it has historical value as it marks a decisive turning-point in the mental development of the child. In the second place, it typifies an essential libidinal relationship with the body- image. (Lacan, 1951b:14) As Lacan further develops the concept of the mirror stage, the stress falls less on its ‘historical value’ and ever more on its structural value. Thus by 1956 Lacan can say: ‘The mirror stage is far from a mere phenomenon which occurs in the development of the child. It illustrates the conflictual nature of the dual relationship’ (S4, 17). The mirror stage describes the formation of the EGO via the process of identification; the ego is the result of identifying with one’s own SPECULAR IMAGE. The key to this phenomenon lies in the prematurity of the human baby: at six months, the baby still lacks coordination. However, its visual system is relatively advanced, which means that it can recognise itself in the mirror before attaining control over its bodily movements. The baby sees its own image as whole (see GESTALT), and the synthesis of this image produces a sense of contrast with the uncoordination of the body, which is experienced as a FRAGMENTED BODY; this contrast is first felt by the infant as a rivalry with its own image, because the wholeness of the image threatens the subject with fragmentation, and the mirror stage thereby gives rise to an aggressive tension between the subject and the image (see AGGRESSIVITY). In order to resolve this aggressive tension, the subject identifies with the image; this primary identification with the counterpart is what forms the ego. The moment of identification, when the subject assumes its image as its own, is described by Lacan as a moment of jubilation (E, 1), since it leads to an imaginary sense of mastery; ‘[the child’s] joy is due to his imaginary triumph in anticipating a degree of muscular co- ordination which he has not yet actually achieved’ (Lacan, 1951b: 15; see S1, 79). However, this jubilation may also be accompanied by a depressive reaction, when the child compares his own precarious sense of mastery with the omnipotence of the mother (Ec, 345; S4, 186). This identification also involves the ideal ego which functions as a promise of future wholeness which sustains the ego in anticipation. The mirror stage shows that the ego is the product of misunderstanding (méconnaissance) and the site where the subject becomes alienated from himself. It represents the introduction of the subject into the imaginary order. However, the mirror stage also has an important symbolic dimension. The symbolic order is present in the figure of the adult who is carrying or supporting the infant. The moment after the subject has jubilantly assumed his image as his own, he turns his head round towards this adult, who represents the big Other, as if to call on him to ratify this image (Lacan, 1962–3: seminar of 28 November 1962). The mirror stage is also closely related to narcissism, as the story of Narcissus clearly shows (in the Greek myth, Narcissus falls in love with his own reflection). imaginary (imaginaire) Lacan’s use of the term ‘imaginary’ as a substantive dates back to 1936 (Ec, 81). From the beginning, the term has connotations of illusion, fascination and seduction, and relates specifically to the DUAL RELATION between the EGO and the SPECULAR IMAGE. It is important to note, however, that while the imaginary always retains connotations of illusion and lure, it is not simply synonymous with ‘the illusory’ insofar as the latter term implies something unnecessary and inconsequential (Ec, 723). The imaginary is far from inconsequential; it has powerful effects in the real, and is not simply something that can be dispensed with or ‘overcome’. From 1953 on, the imaginary becomes one of the three ORDERS which constitute the tripartite scheme at the centre of Lacanian thought, being opposed to the symbolic and the real. The basis of the imaginary order continues to be the formation of the ego in the MIRROR STAGE. Since the ego is formed by identifying with the counterpart or specular image, IDENTIFICATION is an important aspect of the imaginary order. The ego and the counterpart form the prototypical dual relationship, and are interchangeable. This relationship whereby the ego is constituted by identification with the little other means that the ego, and the imaginary order itself, are both sites of a radical ALIENATION; ‘alienation is constitutive of the imaginary order’ (S3, 146). The dual relationship between the ego and the counterpart is fundamentally narcissistic, and NARCISSISM is another characteristic of the imaginary order. Narcissism is always accompanied by a certain AGGRESSIVITY. The imaginary is the realm of image and imagination, deception and lure. The principal illusions of the imaginary are those of wholeness, synthesis, autonomy, duality and, above all, similarity. The imaginary is thus the order of surface appearances which are deceptive, observable phenomena which hide underlying structure; the affects are such phenomena. However, the opposition between the imaginary and the symbolic does not mean that the imaginary is lacking in structure. On the contrary, the imaginary is always already structured by the symbolic order. For example in his discussion of the mirror stage in 1949, Lacan speaks of the relations in imaginary space, which imply a symbolic structuring of that space (E, 1). The expression ‘imaginary matrix’ also implies an imaginary which is structured by the symbolic (Ec, 221), and in 1964 Lacan discusses how the visual field is structured by symbolic laws (S11, 91–2). The imaginary also involves a linguistic dimension. Whereas the signifier is the foundation of the symbolic order, the SIGNIFIED and SIGNIFICATION are part of the imaginary order. Thus language has both symbolic and imaginary aspects; in its imaginary aspect, language is the ‘wall of language’ which inverts and distorts the discourse of the Other (see SCHEMA L). The imaginary exerts a captivating power over the subject, founded in the almost hypnotic effect of the specular image. The imaginary is thus rooted in the subject’s relationship to his own body (or rather to the image of his body). This captivating/capturing power is both seductive (the imaginary is manifested above all on the sexual plane, in such forms as sexual display and courtship rituals; Lacan, 1956b:272) and disabling: it imprisons the subject in a series of static fixations (see CAPTATION). The imaginary is the dimension of the human subject which is most closely linked to ethology and animal psychology (S3, 253). All attempts to explain human subjectivity in terms of animal psychology are thus limited to the imaginary (see NATURE). Although the imaginary represents the closest point of contact between human subjectivity and animal ethology (S2, 166), it is not simply identical; the imaginary order in human beings is structured by the symbolic, and this means that ‘in man, the imaginary relation has deviated [from the realm of nature]’ (S2, 210). Lacan has a Cartesian mistrust of the imagination as a cognitive tool. He insists, like Descartes, on the supremacy of pure intellection, without dependence on images, as the only way of arriving at certain knowledge. It is this that lies behind Lacan’s use of topological figures, which cannot be represented in the imagination, to explore the structure of the unconscious (see TOPOLOGY).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Mirrors of Culture1
    Mirrors of Culture1 Carla Freccero In 1936 and again, in revised form, in 1949, Jacques Lacan delivered a lecture resonant in its arguments with some of the mirror neuron findings (and applications)—including the neurocultural ramifications—of “How Stories Make Us Feel” and “Literary Biomimesis.” That lecture, presented at the Sixteenth International Congress of Psychoanalysis, was what we’ve come to call “The Mirror Stage,” “Le stade du miroir comme formateur de la fonction du Je telle qu’elle nous est révélée dans l’expérience psychanalytique” (1966, 93-100; translated in 2002, 3-9). There he argued that young animals of the homo sapiens sapiens subspecies first understand their objectal future being—that is, first identify as human—by viewing an image of themselves in a mirror and watching as the image moves—fluidly, seamlessly, perfectly and holistically, so it seems to the young animal— in correspondence with and contrast to his own chaotic and triumphant flailing as he is supported by maternal arms or some other prosthetic device (a “trotte bébé” in French: the translators call it a “walker”). In a breathtaking—and breathless—sentence, Lacan sums up what, for him, is the consequence, for humans, of the formative effects of mimetic identification with a Gestalt: This development is experienced as a temporal dialectic that decisively projects the individual’s formation into history: the mirror stage is a drama whose internal pressure pushes precipitously from insufficiency to anticipation—and, for the subject caught up in the lure of spatial identification, turns out fantasies that proceed from the fragmented image of the body to what I will call an “orthopedic” form of its totality—and to the finally donned armor of an alienating identity that will mark his entire mental development with its rigid structure.
    [Show full text]
  • Masterclass Looking at the Postcolonial Through the Lens Of
    Masterclass Looking at the Postcolonial through the Lens of Psychoanalysis Dr Joanne Faulkner (Philosophy, School of Humanities and Languages, University of New South Wales The extent of colonial violence in Australia, and its repercussions for present-day Aboriginal communities and individuals, has become subject to public discourse in recent years. Yet it is fair to say that its treatment has been ambivalent at best, and deeply problematic at worst, as contemporary Australians attempt to distance themselves from responsibility for past violence and its present effects. Arguably, what is taking place in Australia is not a simple case of denial (at least in its colloquial sense), but rather involves a complicated effort to manage and conceal — and to identify with and repudiate — the injuries suffered by Aboriginal people. The Masterclass will explore the ways in which psychoanalytic theory may help researchers to interpret the complex and contradictory investments of settler colonial subjectivity, and the often-perverse policies pursued by governments in the name of remediation. In particular, psychoanalysis can help us approach the hidden identifications and intents that are sometimes buried within projects of reconciliation. It can also support a critical suspicion regarding the stereotypes accorded to the “colonised other,” and the possibilities thereby available to them to participate in shaping community and cultural identity within the postcolonial nation. Discussion will be led by Dr Faulkner, in relation to approaches taken in her own work, and leading into an afternoon seminar that will demonstrate these uses. Freud’s concepts of the death drive and the uncanny, particularly, will be drawn on to address questions of ‘home,’ displacement, sovereignty, temporality, and the return of repressed aggression in the postcolonial context.
    [Show full text]
  • Subject to Failure
    SUBJECT TO FAILURE by Ryan Robert Mitchell A thesis submitted to the Department of Sociology In conformity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Queen’s University Kingston, Ontario, Canada (January, 2008) Copyright ©Ryan Robert Mitchell, 2008 Abstract My project here is to look at how uncovering those unconscious and phantasmatic identifications in the social field can lead to the possibility of altering subjectivity or, at the very least, tracing how subjects are formed through structure and how they are psychically linked to ideological structure. This thesis suggests that subjection is never total or complete and that when viewed from an awry or skewed perspective, particular discourses and modes of subjection are revealed to be neither permanent, true nor necessary—we can always open up new spaces of subjectivity and discourse and through the practice of ‘tracing’ structure we can discern how we are determined and at which points structure constrains or enables us. My work is an effort to supplement theories of discourse analysis/ideology critique with psychoanalytic concepts, and more specifically, the psychoanalytic category of fantasy to discuss the ways in which discourses are provided with coherence and how subjects are tethered/binded to discursive fields. In my discussion of the non-discursive, I will be drawing from the Freudian concept of unheimlich, or the uncanny, to discuss the ways in which discursive fields become disrupted by repressed or “foreign” elements. I contend that the subject always exceeds structure, and for this reason, there is always room for resistance within discursive fields. ii Acknowledgements There have been many people who have supported me with this project throughout the years, and it is my wish that each one of them knows that I am sincerely grateful.
    [Show full text]
  • Hegel, Lacan, and Material Negativity
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by ZRC SAZU Publishing (Znanstvenoraziskovalni center - Slovenske... Filozofski vestnik | Volume XXXIII | Number 2 | 2012 | 23–52 Adrian Johnston* Reflections of a Rotten Nature: Hegel, Lacan, and Material Negativity As I have underscored repeatedly in past texts,1 Jacques Lacan, despite his repu- tation as an avid anti-naturalist, has no qualms whatsoever about leaning upon certain ideas of nature as components of his theoretical apparatus.2 Although adamantly opposed to the introduction of a crudely reductive biologism as a grounding paradigm for psychoanalysis, he is not, for all that, categorically dis- missive of the life sciences. Once in a while, he even permits himself, like Freud, to voice hopes of eventual biological confirmations of analytic theories.3 To take just one illustration of this known to anyone familiar with Lacanianism, Lacan’s concept of “need” (besoin), as per the need-demand-desire triad, is bound up with the biological facticity of protracted infantile Hilflosigkeit, an anatomical and physiological “fact” of immense import for psychical ontogeny in the eyes of both Freud and Lacan.4 Arising immediately from the very start of the human 1 Adrian Johnston, Žižek’s Ontology: A Transcendental Materialist Theory of Subjectivity, Evan- ston: Northwestern University Press, 2008, pp. 269–287; Adrian Johnston, “Slavoj Žižek’s Hegelian Reformation: Giving a Hearing to The Parallax View,” Diacritics: A Review of Con- temporary Criticism, vol. 37, no. 1, Spring 2007, pp. 3–20; Adrian Johnston, “The Weakness of Nature: Hegel, Freud, Lacan, and Negativity Materialized,” Hegel and the Infinite: Religion, Politics, and Dialectic, ed.
    [Show full text]
  • Narcissism and Cultural Liberation a Textual and Cultural Analysis of Carol Shields’ “Mirrors”
    Narcissism and Cultural Liberation A Textual and Cultural Analysis of Carol Shields’ “Mirrors” By Rebecca Good Abstract This paper will analyze Carol Shields‘ short story ―Mirrors‖ in the collection Dressing Up for the Carnival. The paper will explore how the absence of mirrors in the story creates a break in narcissism, which liberates the characters from cultural impositions. This will be done using Jonathan Culler‘s ―Narrative‖ to analyze the parts of the plot where mirrors appear, or where the couple mirrors each other. The analysis will utilize the psychoanalytical and cultural underpinnings of Freud, Lacan, Lunbeck, Friedman, and Adorno and Horkheimer. Through the breaks in narcissism, the characters are liberated from the cultural impositions of vanity, fashion, marriage, and beauty, among others. Finally, the aspects of narcissism inherent in the setting and internal dialogue of the characters will be examined. Key words: Shields, mirrors, identity, culture, narcissism, uncanny, Narcissus 1. Introduction: Carol Shields and “Mirrors” Carol Shields‘ short story ―Mirrors‖ is about a couple‘s marriage to each other over a thirty-five-year time span, and their decision not to have any mirrors in their summer house (450). This deliberate act of mirrorlessness and the season of nonreflectiveness is justified by an innate need of appearance: ―The need to observe ourselves is sewn into us, everyone knows this, but he and his wife have turned their backs on this need…‖ (Shields 450). As noted by Dvorak, ―[Shields‘] writing, rooted in everdaynness, is profoundly metaphorical‖ (Dvorak 3). Thus, the story delves into the 79 ideas of self-identity in the absence of the mirrors but in the presence of another person, and the experience of the couple ultimately seeing themselves in each other (Kruk 122).
    [Show full text]
  • Cultural Techniques of Mirroring from Lecanomancy to Lacan George C
    communication +1 Volume 7 Issue 1 Intersectionalities and Media Article 5 Archaeologies October 2018 Cultural Techniques of Mirroring from Lecanomancy to Lacan George C. Vollrath University of Wisconsin - Superior, [email protected] Abstract Drawing on archaeological and historical evidence about the materials, production techniques, and ritualized use of mirrors in ancient and modern contexts, this paper demonstrates that potentials for self-recognition are subject to the material attributes of mirrors themselves. I argue that any theory of the self in communication theory must foreground mediated techniques of self-recognition if it wishes to understand the concepts of identity and identification in their cultural and historical specificity. I address mirrors from ancient Egypt, Mesoamerica, and Greece, biblical stories, the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, and modern psychological theory. In all cases, I find that a clear link can be made between the reigning technical standard for mirror production and dominant assumptions about the nature of the self and its cosmological or metaphysical roles. In short, cultural standards for self- identification are circumscribed and preceded by technical standards of material production. Keywords cultural techniques, mirrors, identity, self, mirror stage, media archaeology This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Vollrath / Cultural Techniques of Mirroring Not long ago, after a trying railway journey by night, and much fatigued, I got into an omnibus, just as another gentleman appeared at the other end. ‘What degenerate pedagogue is that, that has just entered,’ thought I. It was myself: opposite me hung a large mirror. The physiognomy of my class, accordingly, was better known to me than my own.
    [Show full text]
  • Wo Es War : Marxism, the Unconscious, and Subjectivity
    4 Wo es war : Marxism, the Unconscious, and Subjectivity I Learning, at its most basic, can be described as the pro- cess of acquiring knowledge. Perhaps, with this definition’s most standard and ordinary rendition, learning appears rather unproblematic for any conception of what it means to be a student—even coalescing with the latter. Thus a student, in the standard model, is simply the actor or subject who acquires knowledge—a happy union indeed. But does such a concept of subjectivity accord with a critical education? The question arises because what makes learning critical usually turns on the registering of some socially traumatic knowledge. In the various critical theories (feminist theory, Marxism, critical race theory, and the like), this traumatic knowledge goes by such names as exploitation, oppression, subjugation, and so on. When it comes to knowledge of the disturbing kind, can we continue to assume an unproblematic homology between learning and studenthood? In other words, do students easily or willfully learn knowledge that is traumatic—for example, knowledge of social and political oppression, acts of genocide, or economic exploitation?1 Even a cursory examination of the various modes of commu- nication, from the cultural industry to schooling, will show that learning traumatic knowledge does not proceed without some resistance. It is enough to recall that the culture industry exists precisely to provide relief from social trauma, much less to help in knowing it. In that case, traumatic knowledge—the very K. D. Cho, Psychopedagogy © K. Daniel Cho 2009 72 PSYCHOPEDAGOGY knowledge at stake in critical theory—represents, from the standpoint of pedagogy, something of a problem for critical theory itself.
    [Show full text]
  • Althusser's Mirror
    Studies in 20th Century Literature Volume 18 Issue 1 Special Issue on The Legacy of Article 7 Althusser 1-1-1994 Althusser's Mirror Carsten Strathausen University of Oregon Follow this and additional works at: https://newprairiepress.org/sttcl Part of the French and Francophone Literature Commons This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License. Recommended Citation Strathausen, Carsten (1994) "Althusser's Mirror," Studies in 20th Century Literature: Vol. 18: Iss. 1, Article 7. https://doi.org/10.4148/2334-4415.1339 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by New Prairie Press. It has been accepted for inclusion in Studies in 20th Century Literature by an authorized administrator of New Prairie Press. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Althusser's Mirror Abstract Jacques Lacan significantly influenced Althusser's accounts of ideology and the subject. Althusser's belief that science is a discourse without a subject parallels Lacan's belief that in the Symbolic Order the Subject and the Other are alienated. Althusser's account of interpellation, which explains how ideology recognizes individuals as subjects, takes for granted Lacan's notion of the mirror stage. Althusser repudiates the plenitude of the subject, whose interpellation conceals its lack; Lacan shows that the subject's failure to express itself in language makes the subject a void. However, Althusser, whose subject is too much like Lacan's ego, fails to distinguish between the "I" of the split subject and the "ego" of the subject's imaginary self-identity.
    [Show full text]
  • The Function of Mirrors and Reflection in Seventeenth-Century Painting
    Queen’s Journal of Visual & Material Culture Issue 1 | 2008 Danielle Manning (Re)visioning Heterotopia: The Function of Mirrors and Reflection in Seventeenth-Century Painting he enigmatic term “heterotopia,” popularized by Michel Foucault in his text The Order of Things (1966), describes sites that undermine stable T relationships, disrupt conventions of order, and negate straightforward categorization. Heterotopias also reflect a curious slippage between the familiar and the unfamiliar, a property expressed by Sigmund Freud’s notion of the ‘uncanny.’1 Heterotopic sites seem familiar, as they are subsumed within a society’s conventional ordering system that links them to other sites, yet they are unfamiliar in that they simultaneously contradict the premises by which these relationships are sustained.2 By using heterotopic theory to analyze the function of mirrors and reflections in seventeenth-century Dutch paintings, it is possible to illuminate the spatial complexity of these scenes, a characteristic that is initially masked by the paintings’ seemingly accurate transcription of an observed reality. The purpose of this visual play between nature and painterly artifice is to challenge vision’s role in producing empirical knowledge. Foucault’s interest in the breakdown of order characterizing heterotopias was inspired by his response to Borges’ passage from a Chinese encyclopaedia, which uses an alphabetical ordering system to narrow the distinction between fantastic creatures of the imagination and those that exist in reality. Thus, the effect of this passage is to “disturb and threaten with collapse our age-old distinction between 1 Sigmund Freud, “The Uncanny,” in Art and Literature. The Penguin Freud Library vol.
    [Show full text]
  • Father Knows Best
    Studies in 20th Century Literature Volume 18 Issue 1 Special Issue on The Legacy of Article 8 Althusser 1-1-1994 Father Knows Best Judith Roof University of Delaware Follow this and additional works at: https://newprairiepress.org/sttcl Part of the American Literature Commons, French and Francophone Literature Commons, and the Modern Literature Commons This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License. Recommended Citation Roof, Judith (1994) "Father Knows Best," Studies in 20th Century Literature: Vol. 18: Iss. 1, Article 8. https://doi.org/10.4148/2334-4415.1340 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by New Prairie Press. It has been accepted for inclusion in Studies in 20th Century Literature by an authorized administrator of New Prairie Press. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Father Knows Best Abstract In his essay, "Althusser's Mirror," Carsten Strathausen reveals the paternal politics inherent to any gesture of appropriation. Molding Lacan to an Althusserian mirror, Strathausen demonstrates parallels between Lacan's mirror stage and Althusser's interpellated subject. The resemblance, created through what Strathausen suggests is Althusser's mis-reading of Lacan, reveals their mutual influence. The question of influence, however, becomes an issue of tradition Althusser links to a politics of legitimacy and right he associates with a figure of paternity. While the process of filiation would seem ot extend from Lacan to Althusser in the logic of the mirror employed by Strathausen to renew Marxist thought, Althusser also situates himself as the father to a Lacan he is attempting to salvage from the ignominy of illegitimacy.
    [Show full text]
  • The Return of the Other
    Canadian Journal of Political and Social Theorv/Revue canadienne de thiorie politique et sociale, Vol. 4, No. 2 (Spring-Summer/ Printemps-Ete, 1980). THE RETURN OF THE OTHER Jeanne Wolf.f v. Amerongen The ontological basis of history is the relation of men with other men, the fact that the individual "I" exists only against the background of the community . Lucien Goldmann There are no subjects except by and for their subjection . Louis Althusser I identify myself in language, but only by losing myself in it like an object. Jacques Lacan Jacques Lacan, Ecrits, A Selection, translated from the French by Alan Sheridan, New York: W.W. Norton & Company Inc ., 1977, pp. 335 . Jacques Lacan is scarcely a new name on the academic scene. He is widely known and discussed in the fields of psychoanalysis, literary criticism and media studies . Although many books, essays and critical reviews have been devoted to formulating a clearer and more comprehensive understanding of his work for the North American audience, relatively few critics have attempted to relate Lacan's work to the study of ideology . The lack of critical analysis in the realm of ideology cannot be accidental since Lacan himself has never developed a concrete theory of the subject and its formation in and through ideology, and accordingly it is only on a latent level that such a description can be derived . Despite Lacan's reticence to formulate explicitly a theory of ideology, he has, however unremittingly attacked the school of American Ego Psychology for its ideological presupposition of the autonomous individual and unified ego structure .
    [Show full text]
  • Psychoanalyzing the Subjectivity of Marlow and Kurtz in Conrad's Heart
    “The Great Subterranean Pool of the Subconscious”: Psychoanalyzing the Subjectivity of Marlow and Kurtz in Conrad’s Heart of Darkness Jason Funderburk, English 483 “The conscious mind may be compared to a fountain playing in the sun and falling back into the great subterranean pool of subconscious from which it rises.” —Sigmund Freud, The Interpretation of Dreams (1900) In the area of literary criticism, it is arguable that no other theory placed as much emphasis on the realm of the subconscious as that of psychoanalytic theory. Led by the works of Sigmund Freud and Jacques Lacan, the theory searches for the meaning of its literary text beneath the written language of the printed page, in much the same manner as its psychological use in the treatment of human patients. For example, the repressed elements of a character’s subconscious can be used to reveal unstated elements of his or her characterization, enlightening the reader with a deeper, more complex comprehension of its plot and characters. The richness of its sub-textual analysis can be potentially vital in the reading of a work such as Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad, in which much of the story’s psychological depth lies below its rhetorical presentation. Under the theories of Lacan and Freud, the characterization of Marlow and Kurtz may be interpreted through a psychoanalytic discourse that provides unique understanding of the reasoning and motivation in the construction of each character’s subjectivity. The mysterious characterization and unarticulated actions of Kurtz are uniquely exposed through Freud’s theory of narcissism, particularly in its “queering” of his sexuality and subsequent causation of mental illness, and since Marlow acts as the reader’s pedagogical entry point into the text of the story, it seems appropriate to examine the construction of his subjectivity through French psychoanalyst Lacan’s theory of the mirror stage and its effect on his view of language.
    [Show full text]